User reviews

This is a better adaptation of the book than the one with Paltrow (although I liked that one, too). It isn't so much that Beckinsale is better -- they are both very good -- but that the screenplay is better. Davies is a master at adapting Austen for filming, and the production values here are very good. It's not quite as glossy as the Hollywood treatment, but it's close, and I thought that the locations and the costumes actually worked better.

Until the 1990s there had never been a film based upon Jane Austen's "Emma". Then two came along in the same year, 1996. Or, if you count 1995's "Clueless", which updates Austen's plot to a modern American high school, three in two years.

The main character is Emma Woodhouse, a young lady from a well-to-do family in Regency England. She is, financially, considerably better off than most Austen heroines such as Elizabeth Bennett or Fanny Price, and has no need to find herself a wealthy husband. Instead, her main preoccupation seems to be finding husbands for her friends. She persuades her friend Harriet to turn down a proposal of marriage from a young farmer, Robert Martin, believing that Harriet should be setting her sights on the ambitious clergyman Mr Elton. This scheme goes disastrously wrong, however, as Elton has no interest in Harriet, but has fallen in love with Emma herself. The speed with which Emma rejects his proposal makes one wonder just why she was so keen to match her friend with a man she regards (with good reason) as an unsuitable marriage partner for herself. This being a Jane Austen plot, Emma turns out to be less of a committed spinster than she seems, and she too finds herself falling in love, leading to further complications.

Today in 2008 Kate Beckinsale is a Hollywood star, but in 1996, despite being only a year younger, was not nearly as well-known internationally as Gwyneth Paltrow. She is, however, just as convincing as Austen's well-intentioned but often wrong-headed heroine. Beckinsale seems to have a gift for classical roles- she made a delightful Hero in Kenneth Branagh's version of "Much Ado about Nothing"- and I sometimes find myself wishing that Hollywood could have found more suitable roles for her rather than wasting her in turkeys like "Pearl Harbor" or "Underworld".

I preferred Jeremy Northam to Mark Strong as Emma's love interest Mr Knightley, largely because he came closer to my own conception of the character as a gentlemanly, chivalrous older man, in some ways more of a father-figure to Emma than a lover. (His surname is probably meant to indicate his gentlemanly nature- nineteenth-century gentlemen liked to think of themselves as the modern equivalent of mediaeval knights with their elaborate codes of chivalry). Strong tends to downplay the question of the age difference (he is 37, she 21) and makes Knightley more of a passionate lover and less of a wise mentor than does Northam. Samantha Morton (another actress who would go on to bigger things) is perhaps closer to the Harriet of the novel than was Toni Collette.

This was the more small-scale of the two versions, being made for television rather than the cinema, and the sets and costumes seem less lavish and there are fewer big names among the cast. Costume drama, however, is generally something that British television does well, and this version can certainly hold its own with the cinema version; both are entertaining and well-made versions of Austen's novel. 7/10

I had just finished reading Emma by Jane Austen when I took a fancy to watching a screen version to see what was made of it, and chose to watch the TV version starring Kate Beckinsale. I was surprised to see it getting an overall rating on IMDB of 7.1

Don't get me wrong: it isn't at all bad and for its kind quite good, but after reading Austen's subtle novel and having fresh in mind the nuances with which she conveys all the - essentially trivial - goings-on in Highbury, I do feel it somewhat misses its target. Not a lot, but enough to challenge that 7.1 overall rating.

Naturally, a screen or TV adaption of a novel is in many ways restricted, and I have borne that in mind. But there are one or two other details which I feel don't do the novel justice. For example, Emma is undoubtedly a rich woman - her 1816 fortune of £30,000 translates into 2018's more than £2.6 million, and she and her father can afford to live a life of ease.

But their circumstances as portrayed in the TV film do over-egg the pudding to an alarming degree. They - and George Knightley - were most certainly not titled. They were simply well-off landed gentry able to live off the rents they received for their land. So the super grand homes they are shown to live in - and the number of uniformed flunkeys the Woodhouses are shown to employ - are, to be blunt, ludicrous. This is TV early-19th century life.

The social divergences and disposable income in the early 19th century were certainly far, far wider than they are today (at least here in Britain - I can't speak for the US), but the Woodhouses, Knightley and the Weston's were fundamentally well-off middle-class folk. Yes, they had no financial worries, although fate and fortune could, and very often did, pitch such families down the social scale quite fast as they had no way of insuring themselves.

In those days, a candle falling over and starting a fire which could burn their houses to the ground was a perpetual fear for them and did easily bankrupt many a well-to-do family. (A good example is how TV portrays the ball at the Crown: despite the availability of staff, in the novel it was very much a small-scale DIY affair, more a fun gathering than the full-blown event shown.)

The TV film portrays them otherwise. As shown in the film they would be living as minor aristocracy. In this regard Knightley's grand pile is especially ludicrous. Austen herself and her family, however impeccably middle-class, were certainly not well-off and were forever teetering on the brink of penury, all to often relying on the goodwill of family. Hence the then sheer necessity of a young woman 'marrying well'. These might be minor points, of course, and after all it is fiction. But as in this regard it does not reflect on Jane Austen's world, other infelicities also creep in.

My second reservation is that the TV film falls short of conveying the subtleties of the different situations the characters find themselves in. Again to be blunt it is all just a tad too cut and dried.

Screenwriter Andrew Davies, the go-to chap for this kind of stuff, otherwise does reasonably well: though at times a little broad-brush, he does Austen's characters s0me justice, although his script does rather take too little account of Austen's sharp with and satirical eye.

The plot of Austen's novel is also far to syncopated in this adaptation, with the various developments simply not being sufficiently established to make much sense. Overall, I was disappointed and would recommend anyone so inclined to head for the far more substantial novel. But that said, as a piece of costume drama this version can still hold its head high for those who go a bundle for this kind of thing.

While I adore Jeremy Northam in the Winslow boy, Mark Strong is outstanding as Mr. Knightley in this much more human version of Emma. She is, as Jane Austen rightly stated, not our favourite character, and in the Gwyneth Paltrow version she is even more vain and manipulative. In this version, Kate B makes her very young and yet willing to learn. I liked it very much and hope the two main characters get picked up very quickly for more movies so that we in Canada can see them more often.

Emma Woodhouse (Kate Beckinsale) has a rigid sense of propriety as regards matrimonial alliances. Unfortunately she insists on matchmaking for her less forceful friend, Harriet, and so causes her to come to grief.

Inevitably, this must be compared to the other "Emma", starring Gwyneth Paltrow, as they came out around the same time. For what it is worth, I think they both have their strengths. Paltrow's "Emma" has the benefit of a bigger budget, so everything looks better and makes for a stronger film. Beckinsale's "Emma" looks cheap, but has one thing in its favor: Beckinsale, who seems to really get into the character.

Both have the familiar lines (I'm sure neither deviated too far from the novel). Had Beckinsale been cast in the Paltrow version, we may have seen the ultimate presentation of this literary classic.

As winter approaches, our state-owned broadcaster, the ABC, has decided for some reason to have a partial Jane Austen Festival on Sunday nights. This commenced with a twelve-year old movie length version of "Emma" last Sunday; more recent versions of three other novels, "Persuasion", "Northanger Abbey" and "Mansfield Park" are to come.

The curious thing about this production by A&E Television Networks, with script by the ever-reliable Andrew Davies, is that it appeared almost simultaneously with two much bigger budget movie versions, one starring Gwyneth Paltrow, and "Clueless", a "modernized" version, starring Alicia Silverstone, which transported the plot to Beverly Hills. Perhaps as a result, even with Kate Beckinsale in the lead, this production sank without trace.

As a general rule, much is lost when novels are shrunk to fit feature movie length. The adaptations one tends to both enjoy and remember are those which have adequate room to develop both story and characters. An outstanding example is "Brideshead Revisited" which had 13 50-minute episodes back in 1982. You only have to compare the very ordinary movie-length version of "Pride and Prejudice" in 2005 with the brilliant 1995 six-part TV mini-series. It's not that a novel should be filmed page by page, and some novels (often not very good ones) adapt wonderfully to film ("Atonement" is a recent example), but novels of the Jane Austen sort need some time and space to exert their full charm.

Given the shortcomings of this type of adaptation, this production is OK. Kate Beckinsale gives Emma the right mix of self-assuredness and vulnerability and Mark Strong is a forthright Mr Knightly (he reminded me that Jane tended to recycle characters – Knightly is a more articulate version of the moody Mr Darcy of P&P). Samantha Morton was a rather limp Harriet but Prunella Scales got the blabbermouth Miss Bates perfectly – Sybil Fawlty on speed. Bernard Hepton as Emma's feeble father was also excellent. We saw the damp countryside, the mud and the poverty as well as the posh interiors, in case anyone thought this was a particularly idyllic age for everybody.

Even though this was a condensed adaptation it was oddly slow in places – some of the conversations were rather stilted, even allowing for the formalities of the times. I'd have to look at the film again to be sure, but it might be due to the under-use of reaction shots.

If you do like filmed period stuff this is a perfectly nice example, and compares well with the Paltrow version. Anyway, there is more to come!

Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen´s novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale´s interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can´t help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character´s personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.

The makers of the ITV and A&E TV film of Jane Austen's "Emma" may have had fits in 1996. An independent group was making a film for the silver screen about the same time (to be distributed by Miramax), and it was ahead of ITV's film in production and its release. This has happened a few times in film history when different groups plan on and actually film the same novel or story for a movie.

Both films had new rising stars as their leads. Gwyneth Paltrow in the theater film and Kate Beckinsale in this ITV/A&E film. The only other widely known cast member here is Prunella Scales as Miss Bates. Scales will be remembered always for her Sybil in "Fawlty Towers." But the theater film had more recognizable cast members – including Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightly and Ewan McGregor as Frank Church.

Both films won awards – this one received two Emmys, and the theater film received on Oscar and one more nomination. The critics seem divided on these two films, mostly over the lead role. Those who prefer the girlish, romantic Emma gave the nod to Beckinsale in this TV film. Those who prefer the more lofty, class conscious Emma gave the nod to Paltrow. Each actress does a very good job in her respective role for the script she had. And, that's where I think the theater film screenplay was truer to the character as Austen portrayed her. The ITV script is more serious and somewhat dark. The theater film has its serious moments but they don't suppress the lightness and humor. So, Paltrow's character seems to more closely embody the Emma we read on the pages of the novel.

That will likely remain a matter of taste between viewers of two camps, but an important aspect to consider is the rest of the cast and the screenplays. For those, this TV film falls behind the theater movie. The two-hour theater movie was able to better cover the main scenarios of the novel. This TV film is more serious and more of a drama, where I think Austen wanted the humor to be more apparent. And the casting was far better in the theater film. Mark Strong is a fine actor, but his Mr. Knightley was not the gentle soul and good-natured teacher and sparring partner to Emma. His was far more serious, bold and nearly belligerent in his protestations. The rest of the cast are a mix. Scales was fine as Miss Bates, but she couldn't equal Sophie Thompson's role in the theater movie. Some of the other characters seemed quite weak in this rendition.

Anyone who enjoys Jane Austen should enjoy this film. But if one has a choice, the best and most entertaining film of "Emma" is the 1996 theater movie that stars Gwyneth Paltrow.

Of the spate of Austen films from the 1990s, this is my favorite, more even than "Persuasion," which was the one that converted me to Austeniana. Before seeing this "Emma" I had seen two previous versions, but in one Emma seemed all wrong, more like Lady Teazle, and in the other she seemed half wrong, like a possible impostor, whereas here she seemed just right, young and silly and stubborn. In general I thought the attitude and the atmosphere of the production conveyed the charm of the novel exceedingly well; indeed it is one of the sweetest, merriest things I have ever seen, rather in the nature of a Christmas treat. The script is unusually well formed, and the adapter's additions, like the shaft of light that reveals Harriet to Emma in church, are all in keeping. Mark Strong as Knightley is not what I would have expected, but I enjoyed him very much: he strongly brings out the plain-spoken, practical side of the character, in contrast with Emma's affectations, and his choleric outbursts against Frank Churchill are quite funny. Bernard Hepton makes Mr. Woodhouse a figure of almost Carrollian absurdity; Samantha Morton as Emma's protégé is exactly as soft and exactly as firm as she ought to be. And as in the same producers' "Pride and Prejudice," care is taken that the eventual couplings of characters can be believed--uniquely in some cases. For me this production was and remains a delight.

I didn't know the story prior to watching this film. Unfortunately, for the first half hour I was struggling to understand what was going on. Characters were introduced too quickly and without much explanation (Miss Bates and the other lady? Knightley proves eventually to be super rich? Who was Harriet again? Who was Jane? Knightly held Emma when she was 3 months old? How and why? Was he a child himself or adult?). The editing is very poor, with too short scenes that hardly make sense in very quick succession (Jane cries and Martin watches her for 5 seconds, why? What happened? Jane quickly leaves a party, why? Next day she seems fine. Frank is frustrated for a scene of 20secs and in the next scene he is fine, why?). There are hardly any reaction shots or close ups that can allow the viewer to understand the characters' feelings. So for most of the film, I had no idea who fancies whom. Only at the end I came to know that Knightley fancies Emma and vice versa. Ironically, the ending felt too long.

Compare this to the brilliant direction of 1995 P&P, where numerous reaction shots allow viewers to understand the characters' feelings (and progression of feelings). Also, each character is fully described to the viewers (background, wealth, connections, age and personality).

The script and cinematography are good and the actors did what they could. But without a solid direction, the movie seemed disjointed, the characters not fully understood (I could not describe the personality of either Emma or Knightly after this) and both the humour and the romance were not there.

This has long been one of my favourite adaptations of an Austen novel. Although it is definitely not in the same category as the spectacular "Pride and Prejudice," "Emma" is a lush and relatively faithful TV version of Austen's novel -- especially considering its short length. The biggest change between the novel and the movie is a good one, as the unnecessary snobbishness that Austen exhibits at the end of the story is removed here and replaced with someone much more akin to Emma's character in the rest of the book. I thought the characters chosen to portray the roles were well-picked. Kate Beckinsale walks the fine line between girlishness and the social snob with a grace completely lost in Gwyneth Paltrow's '96 version. Samantha Morton's wispy blonde locks suit her attitude and character as the simper that accompanies her role in previous characterisations is replaced with the Harriet we know from the book. Mister Knightly's role is carried out extremely well in my opinion; both the seriousness and the gentle compassion that the hero is painted with in the novel are present here in this much-neglected, sumptuous film.

Well, having read the book and seen the Paltrow theatrical version, I finally decided to seek out this lesser known version, largely just because it stars one of my favorite actresses in Kate Beckinsale.

My feelings were mixed. I in fact nearly turned the movie off in the early going as it got off to a rushed and muddled start, handled the entire Elton/Harriet thing very poorly, Kate seemed to be feeling her way through, and Knightley was nearly unrecognizable.

However I changed my mind and returned to it, and am now modestly glad I did so. Kate seemed to get a better handle on her role, and grew stronger throughout the movie, the support characters likewise settled in, and in the Jane/Frank relationship in particular there was so much more justice done to it and those characters than in the theatrical Emma as to almost justify watching this version on those grounds alone.

On the other hand, this version was hamstrung by a critical lack of chemistry between its leads, and indeed a blunt, loud, and almost rude take on the Knightley character which rendered him completely unlovable by virtually anyone, let alone Emma. There is just no spark there, or anything close. Not only no chemistry, but no charisma of any kind. When Emma says to her window "I love him", if I had not read the book I think my response would have been "WHAT???" Even worse might be his proposal the next day when the script writer decided that it would be romantic for him to inform the woman he wants to marry, in the midst of the proposal, that he remembers holding her in his arms when she was three months old. Which is just flat out creepy, and nothing that Austen ventured let me assure you. Maybe he could tell her about the time he changed her diapers too to complete the seduction.

So overall, not great, but not bad. Having seen both I am still of the opinion the Paltrow version was the stronger -- despite its excessive cuteness, it was well constructed and seemed to have a good idea of what it wanted to be and say. The characterizations in that version are in general stronger and more vividly painted, and it also had a sense of humor, which while perhaps not 100% Austen's, at least bettered the dourness often at display in this version. But this version had its charms too, although they took a while to manifest themselves. Kate started slow but settled in and was charming by the end, and several minor characters were rescued from obscurity (Jane and Frank were particularly well done).

P.S. As an aside, I think the theatrical version's decision to use voiceovers of Emma's thoughts worked better and was more clear than the dream/fantasy sequences attempted here. In such an internalized book, some such device needs to be utilized to make up for all of Emma's thoughts and opinions that the viewer no longer has access to, but the voiceovers had much more personality without breaking up the flow of the movie.

Jane Austen's Emma is an extremely enjoyable story at the worst of times and this production of the story is the best I have ever seen. Kake Beckinsale's Emma is irreproachable. Gwyneth Paltrow, (with the help of a good screenplay and excellent cinematography) is able to bring out the comedy effectively, she fails to make Emma likeable. Paltrow is not aided by the fact that her hairstyles are simply 'wrong' for the part (and I believe the era) and she looks positively ill in the empire line dresses. Kate Beckinsale, on the other hand, manages the comedy effortlessly and is still able to show what Mr Knightly (the most romantic of Jane Austen's heroes) actually sees in her. Mark Strong is a splendid Mr Knightly with the right mix of handsome looks, an appropriate age, chivalry, compassion and gentlemanly behaviour. Emma and Mr Knightly are supported by a cast of good actors and the production as a whole is quite delightful.

How anyone can prefer the Gwyneth Paltrow version over this one beats me. Kate Beckinsale is absolutely charming and doesn't have Paltrow's nasal whine, Mark Strong is possibly not quite as handsome as Jeremy Northam but he is so endearing! (And who was that who said he looked 50? as far as I know, he was actually too young at the time to play Mr Knightley.)Harriet, too, is more convincing -- Toni Colette is far too statuesque. It's much closer to the book than the other version, and elegant as the Paltrow film is (hmm, isn't that what Emma called Jane Fairfax if she was pressed?), it is also rather cold and distant, whereas this version is warm and gentle. My only quibble with this version is the altogether too friendly ending; I doubt whether in Jane Austen's class-conscious world Harriet and her Mr Martin would ever have danced with the two "upper-class" couples. Nevertheless, whenever I'm in the mood for Emma, this is the one I grab!

I've seen this movie after watching Paltrow's version. I've found that one a very good one, and I thought this would not be as good... but I was wrong: British version was far better and enjoyable! I found Jeremy Northam more "agreeable" than Mark Strong, but I can say that Strong catches much better Austen's Knightley. Anyway, both versions are good,but anyone that loved Austen's books, should watch this movie. I agree with *caalling*: Andrew Davies changed a few things, but still remains faithful to the original.

10 out of 10

My 2 cents!

I believe that this adaptation deserves a much lower grading than the Hollywood adaptation with Gywneth Paltrow, since it doesn't manage to portray any of the Austen's subtle wit and humour, and it does not bring onto screen any likable characters. K. Beckinsale's Emma is a spoiled, self-righteous girl, without the softness or humour of G. Paltrow's Emma. M. Strong's Knightley is a harsh brooding person, without the wit or gentleness of Northam's Knightley. The atmosphere is also rather gloomy: the scenes filmed in the dark, the thieves episode, the more obvious presence of servants in the story. The script might be closer to the book regarding the details, but it is certainly far from the luminous and satiric spirit of Austen. Everybody seems to take him/her-self much more seriously here, and Emma seems never to realize that she is prone to mistakes as any other human being; she preserves that self-righteous feeling until the end of the movie.

It has taken me a while to watch this version as unfortunately I don't seem to be able to rent it in the video store, only the other version but I fell in love with it. I was always borderline with the other Emma. Gwenneth and Toni Collette, as they are not British naturally have to put on the accent, and well to me it doesn't seem natural. It seems put on. Sorry but don't think Toni and Gwenneth did a brilliant job there. I could not warm to any of the characters, but this version is more heart warming and more the type of person I imagined Emma to be. It is definitely the version I will come back to from now on. I was disappointed that Mr Knightley was not better looking, but he is convincing. I also like Jane Fairfax better (played by Olivia Williams). I never warmed to her in the movie version, but she is better portrayed in this version. Come to think of it, (besides Mr Knightley) all characters are better played, and a lot less over the top. Unfortunately both came out around same time and the Paltrow version got more publicity. Pity...... I also love the new scene at the end. Well done to Kate Beckingsale! Therefore, if you are a Jane Austen fan, don't forget to watch this one.

This version of Emma is far richer, more believable, and more emotionally compelling than the movie version, which seems like a flighty tv sitcom in comparison (topped off with Paltrow's horrible nasal faux British accent). Both Kate Beckinsale and Mark Strong are fabulous in their interpretations of Emma and Mr. Knightley, and Raymond Coulthardt (where is this beautiful man hiding?) is just perfect as Frank Churchill. Mrs. Elton also more cleverly annoying than in the other version. This BBC version of Emma is in the same league as the BBC Pride & Prejudice, the Emma Thompson Sense and Sensibility, and the 90's version of Persuasion.

Sorry, Jeremy Northam (Mr. Knightley in Paltrow's Emma), you're normally brilliant, but you just signed up for the wrong one.

I have hesitated for a long time before watching this version. I couldn't choose between it and the one with Gwyneth Paltrow: both versions include actors I know and admire, both seemed to be adequately faithful to the book, etc. But the cover illustration of the edition of "Emma" I have shows a dark-haired girl, so I have always imagined Emma as a brunette - that's why I chose this version after all.

And I'm INCREDIBLY glad I did.

It is really very faithful to the book, and, what is more, it captures the book's spirit. We see quite a complicated drama, with confused human feelings and a very vague good guys-bad guys distinction, and yet everything is in the 19th century style, one can see no traces of modernization.

The main heroine is portrayed perfectly, with all the contradictions of her nature. Kate Beckinsale shows us a girl who is full of good will but can be quite arrogant, who is rather clever but too self-assured... And, furthermore, we see Beckinsale's Emma changing and maturing as the film goes on.

Mark Strong, too, gives a great performance as Emma's ever-faithful friend Mr. Knightley. He always conveys the emotions his character's supposed to feel - sometimes with only his facial expression, as Mr. Knightley is not a talkative person.

The other actors are wonderful as well, so I think the characters look and behave just as Jane Austen must have imagined. My favorite among the minor characters is Harriet Smith, a naive sweet-natured girl whom we can't help but pity as she struggles to sort out her feelings. She is so realistic in the movie! After watching it, I sometimes find myself in situations similar to Harriet's - even though I live two hundred years later!

Having been a fan of Jane Austen and of Emma since GCSEs, I was eager overtime to see as many adaptations as possible. Aside from the loose, contemporary spin of the story in Clueless, a fun film full of energy, I've seen four versions. My least favourite is the Gwyneth Paltrow film, though I still like it very much for the beautiful cinematography and witty screenplay. I also love the 1972 and 2009 mini-series, the 1972 series had the best Frank Churchill and 2009 the best Mr Woodhouse, but after re-visiting it after years of just having fond memories of it I consider this 1996 TV film the best version. It is beautifully photographed, with some of the loveliest costumes and scenery of any period adaptation I've seen recently. And I loved the emphasis on the classes after seeing adaptations like 2007's Mansfield Park where they don't get enough attention, and didn't actually find it too heavy-handed. The music is effective in how simple in melody and orchestration it, the story is charming and evenly-paced and the writing is controlled and has wit and charm throughout. Kate Beckinsale looks absolutely radiant as Emma, just as much as she did in 1993's Much Ado About Nothing, it helps that she's young and she leaves room for her character Emma, a flawed and multifaceted character, to grow. Mark Strong is a perfect Knightley, not as dashing as Jeremy Northam or Jonny Lee Miller, but still gentlemanly, handsome and compassionate. Bernard Hepton is perfect as the funny if tiring Mr Woodhouse, Samantha Morton is a firm Harriet and Raymond Coulthart is very magnetic as Frank Churchill. Olivia Williams, Prunella Scales, Samantha Bond and Lucy Robinson are also excellent. All in all, my favourite Emma, I agree the ending is a little too friendly, but other than that this is great. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.

This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).

Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.